I'm Political Economy editor at Forbes, editor of RealClearMarkets.com, plus a senior economic advisor to Toreador Research & Trading. I have book on how the economy works, Popular Economics: What LeBron James, the Rolling Stones and Downton Abbey Can Teach You About Economics that is set for release in April of 2015. I have a weekly column on Mondays at Forbes.com.

Michael Saylor Channels Joseph Schumpeter In His Vision Of An Abundant, Cyber Future

Saylor’s description of the looming demise of libraries brought to mind what the Information Revolution’s impact might be on government. The Mobile Wave is decidedly non-political as mentioned, that was probably by design, so when it comes to governments Saylor only wades into the political waters insofar as he notes that social media accessed through smartphones had helped topple certain governments in the Middle East.

But just as it would have been interesting to know his thoughts on the kinds of commercial entities that will replace physical retailers, and what is the ideal digital money, it would have been fun if he’d commented more on how the Information Revolution will impact the political class stateside. No doubt Saylor is aware of the low image Congress has in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans, so the question would be if he thinks disruptive technology might offer us some relief from Washington, D.C.

At the very least, it should be said that the broad mix of what we know to be work is soon to change. If paper is headed to zero, then it’s certainly true that our economy faces radical change as the positively acidic nature of technology rearranges our labor. This clearly excites Saylor, and it should excite all readers. Contrary to what you hear from a dying traditional media, job destruction driven by technological advancement is the path to more specialized work, and with specialization, higher wages.

If there’s one area of broad disagreement with Saylor, it would have to do with his optimism about the future impact of education. Here it should be stressed that the disagreement isn’t with his predictions in total, but instead is rooted in skepticism about the presumed value of education.

Saylor writes that “Nothing has forecast the growth of a city better over the last century than its education level.” No doubt that’s true, but what remains uncertain is the correlation. Are we successful in the U.S. because of our universities, or do we have top universities because we’re successful? It says here it’s the latter.

Saylor himself has two degrees from MIT, but he would presumably acknowledge that most of his classmates haven’t achieved nearly as much as he has. Did MIT make Saylor, or is Saylor naturally smart and hard working; both attributes keys to success that can hardly be taught.

After that, while no one reads the same book, this reviewer says The Mobile Wave is about how disruptive technologies lead to huge economic leaps that enhance our health and social wellbeing. If so, Saylor would surely acknowledge that entrepreneurial success is a function of doing what’s not been done before; hence it being “disruptive.” Because it is, it’s hardly something that can be taught.

Saylor decries massive annual outlays on education in the U.S. that at best produce uneven results. As he sees it, the rise of mobile and tablet computing will bring Harvard, MIT and Stanford instruction to all Americans. Or, in the case of the late Jaime Escalante, since his skill at teaching calculus proved difficult to transfer to others, in the future the Escalantes of tomorrow will teach kids around the world who will get their instruction from Apple Inc.-style iPads.

More excitingly to Saylor, on those same tablets political science majors will take classes from Bill Clinton, film majors will learn from Ron Howard, while Steven Hawking “could lecture on cosmology.” Saylor points out that even if they charge millions for their courses, the cost of greatly enhanced education would still plummet.

No doubt all of the above is potentially true, but can it be assumed that better knowledge of calculus or any subject taught in school will advance us economically? Indeed, throughout The Mobile Wave Saylor with great articulation explains that what holds civilization back is wasted labor in areas that technology should erase. In short, just as we shed work on the way to economic advancement, don’t we similarly shed knowledge? If so, even non-static education is almost by definition yesterday’s news. Smart people will learn to read and write, after which success is a function of working hard and smart.

As for online classes taught by the greatest minds at great cost savings, that it would be so much cheaper perhaps explains why it may never achieve mass appeal. Put plainly, when parents spend a fortune on their kid’s schooling they’re not buying education; rather they’re buying the “right” friends for them, the right contacts for the future, access to the right husbands and wives, not to mention buying their own status.

Particularly on the collegiate level education is jaw-droppingly expensive, and it’s often asked what in terms of instruction kids are getting in return for the huge cost. Of course that’s a false question. Parents and kids once again aren’t buying education despite their protests to the contrary. Saylor seems to acknowledge the latter with his question, “If a Princeton grad and University of California grad were vying for the same job, whom would you bet on?” Going to college is a status thing, not a learning thing.

So while there’s disagreement about the educational implications of The Mobile Wave, it’s positively uplifting to read about what access to mobile technology means for the Third World. Schumpeter himself alluded to capitalistic success as a function of turning life’s obscurities into ubiquities, and as Saylor’s thinking channels Schumpeter’s, how fun it was to read his stories about how cellphones have created more coordinated and more remunerative markets for fishermen in the Indian state of Kerala. Capitalism is undeniably compassionate.

In the physical world that Saylor confidently and entertainingly predicts that we’re rapidly departing, “Newton’s laws of physics still apply.” Excitingly for a world that remains largely poor, in the world of cyberspace that we’re migrating toward “there are no laws of physics to provide an anchor.” In a must-read book, Michael Saylor has described the past as a way of predicting our brilliant future. As he puts it, “technology fails until it succeeds.” Saylor predicts a great deal of technological success in the very near term that promises an abundant future. We have much to look forward to.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.